Slog
News & ArtsSunday, October 16, 2011
Occupy In Defense of Ambiguity
Posted by Brendan Kiley on Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 6:32 PM
People at the Occupy Seattle protest (at meetings) and in the world at large (in the press, in sidewalk conversations) keep bringing up the fact that the protests haven't stated clear goals or a 10-point platform or something to explain why they're there. Some folks—including folks at The Stranger—have tried to put words in the protesters' mouths, to explain what they want.
Clearly, the protesters and their supporters are pissed off about income disparity in the U.S. and how enormous financial institutions were bailed out with taxpayer money while the taxpayers were simultaneously told to tighten their belts and get used to being broke and cold and hungry.
But people are pissed off about lots of other stuff, too—about the wars, about cuts to social services, about how the wealthy are more invested in exotic trading instruments (i.e., paying people to do fancy math) than the jobs they're supposed to be creating with all that money they can't figure out how to spend but we can't tax and re-invest in the American social structure that made it possible for them to get rich in the first place. People are pissed off about state surveillance after 9/11, about the drug war, about the cowardly and craven behavior of their elected representatives in both parties.
They're pissed off about the media and "the man" and racism and poverty and homelessness and school systems and the fact that the wealthiest nation in human history can't do a simple thing like make sure its people can get necessary medical treatment without going bankrupt and losing their homes—if they even have homes. We've already acclimated to the idea that, in the richest nation in human history, lots of people are homeless.
Some people complain about the broad bandwidth of the Occupy grievances—but that broadness, that ambiguity, is Occupy's strength. It's a testament to its necessity. People aren't putting their lives on hold, camping out, and risking arrest because one policy or another needs to be tweaked to make everything better. They aren't waiting for their municipal, state, or federal government to wave a magic wand and make everything better.
There is no panacea. There aren't just one or two or ten things wrong. That's the problem. That's why they're there.
The protesters are there because they're pissed that the United States of America—supposedly the wealthiest, the best-educated, the most can-do country in the world—can't do. Because the most of us are consistently asked to pick up the tab for the few of us who have much more money than we do, but keep telling us that they left their wallets at home. Or at Davos. Or at Bohemian Grove. Or somewhere.
Just because Occupy hasn't drafted a policy platform or a cure-all law doesn't mean its people shouldn't be out there expressing their dissatisfaction. Because in the U.S., people expressing their dissatisfaction isn't just a right—it's a duty.
At least that's what they taught me in civics class.
So don't dump on the protesters because they haven't collectively articulated a unified set of grievances. Maybe ask one what he or she would like to see change. I bet pretty much everyone at every Occupy site in the world will be able to give you an answer. The answers will be wide-ranging, but don't read that as an indication of confusion.
Read that as an indication of how much work needs to be done—how much work we need to do.
1
Hear, hear! It takes guts to stand for something, take a risk, and not know where its all going. Sneering takes no gall at all.
5
This basically says something similar and it came from someone initially skeptical of the consensus thing:
http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/10/13/…
http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2011/10/13/…
6
You don't need to make demands when the people doing wrong know that enough of you know they're doing wrong.
That's the beauty of consensus.
That's the beauty of consensus.
8
The problem is not so much a lack of clear demands, but that protesting or 'occupying' is not exactly a good means of effecting change.
10
@7 Civil Rights movement wasn't effective because of the hippies, newsflash, the Republicans actually did something right back then.
11
Here's the positive side of Occupy.
They put on the greatest show on earth in the last few weeks.
This show starred the 99 percent, was streamed by the 99 percent, and reported by the 99 percent.
To the extent that it exists and it creates viewership inside the clutter it makes its point.
They put on the greatest show on earth in the last few weeks.
This show starred the 99 percent, was streamed by the 99 percent, and reported by the 99 percent.
To the extent that it exists and it creates viewership inside the clutter it makes its point.
12
@8 So true, "occupying" is actually quite the opposite of change, it's stopping things from happening. A simple distraction for simple minds.
13
@3 60's/70's actually went pretty well - in the scheme of things. Civil rights, voting rights, feminism, the EPA, public broadcasting, the end of the draft, the organic foods movement... If you're going to dis a decade, I'd say the 80's sucked.
21
Idiots who don't understand why there isn't a clear leader or outline, etc. need to stop being lead around by the ring in their nose, stop consuming the BS that is fed to them, and think like an individual for once as well as educate themselves on what a populist movement is.
24
Beautifully said, Mr. Kiley - and exactly right! Enough people calling for change will result in change. It creates enough a crisis for policy makers to actually have to do something. And we haven't seen much else terribly effective at changing the trajectory we've been on for the last 30 years, have we? People are out in the streets - and it's about time. I'd much rather have the future in the hands of those willing to call out and stand up for what's right than the banksters, hedge fund managers, and uber wealthy currently calling the shots with their immoral, insatiable greed. It's inspiring to see so many people calling for justice!
26
It all sounds rather infantile. Maybe the protesters can change things by changing themselves. Want free health care? Protest in front of the million dollar homes of doctors and demand that they start working for free (or a lot less). Want cheap housing? Move to Camden, NJ where you can buy a house for $100.00. Want free food? Go forage for nuts and berries and hunt for squirrels in the woods. Want free love?
Sorry there is no such thing as free love. Or a free lunch.
Sorry there is no such thing as free love. Or a free lunch.
27
@25 and 26: Thanks for your contributions! Your originality and flawless logic will inspire greatness I'm sure.
28
@27 try harder, I've been shitting on this shit longer than since you elected yourself Slog's Official White Knight.
29
"... the wealthy are more invested in exotic trading instruments (i.e., paying people to do fancy math) than the jobs they're supposed to be creating with all that money they can't figure out how to spend but we can't tax and invest in our social structure."
Please note: Someones wealth is their private property. They can have an interest in anything they like (provided...), and aren't "supposed" to do anything with respect to creating jobs. That's their choice. You not liking it doesn't make it less of a choice.
Everyone is entitled to privacy with respect to their choices in spending money. You just begrudge that some have earned more choices. Your desire for an imagined "social structure" beyond the Constitution doesn't compell anyone else to surrender their property.
Please note: Someones wealth is their private property. They can have an interest in anything they like (provided...), and aren't "supposed" to do anything with respect to creating jobs. That's their choice. You not liking it doesn't make it less of a choice.
Everyone is entitled to privacy with respect to their choices in spending money. You just begrudge that some have earned more choices. Your desire for an imagined "social structure" beyond the Constitution doesn't compell anyone else to surrender their property.
30
Thank you for this, Brendan; you said exactly what I've been saying to the naysayers and 'do nothings' in my life, but much more articulately. I agree wholeheartedly (whoa, I almost wrote 'whoreheartedly' ... heh heh!).
31
@28: Yes and your shit shitting is the shit, I can assure you. You should be proud of your scorn filled one-liners. It shows real courage.
32
Here's what I find funny...the people who seem to be upset the most by the Occupiers...aren't Wall Street...it's the Weberati...the bloggers, commenters and e-pundits who thought that if only they wrote the perfect critique of the current society or the ultimate truth it would all come tumbling down.
Fast forward to reality and nothing so far has happened.
Now, a ragtag army of people left the 2-D world behind, and went Full 3-D, and actually Did Stuff like putting up tents, singing, marching, dancing and taking up physical -- not cyber -- space and suddenly the whole world is watching!
And what bothers people is that there isn't any "comment" on society. Occupy seems like it could give a hoot as it goes about its merry low cost way.
Suddenly #occupy has put the "Start up" paradigm of high capitalization, high leverage young people, being festooned with Herman Mueller cubicles inside glass buildings to rest, and made it go outside, in the rain and cold!
So, Occupants are an affront to every cerebralized smug asshole writer and over-optimistic tech do-gooder who thought that designing the next javascript library would bring world peace without considering what exactly it was going to be used for!
No...it takes tents!!! Suck it up, 2-D bandits.
Lay it down
Lay it down
Lay it down
Candles in the rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=530Hqoamf…
Fast forward to reality and nothing so far has happened.
Now, a ragtag army of people left the 2-D world behind, and went Full 3-D, and actually Did Stuff like putting up tents, singing, marching, dancing and taking up physical -- not cyber -- space and suddenly the whole world is watching!
And what bothers people is that there isn't any "comment" on society. Occupy seems like it could give a hoot as it goes about its merry low cost way.
Suddenly #occupy has put the "Start up" paradigm of high capitalization, high leverage young people, being festooned with Herman Mueller cubicles inside glass buildings to rest, and made it go outside, in the rain and cold!
So, Occupants are an affront to every cerebralized smug asshole writer and over-optimistic tech do-gooder who thought that designing the next javascript library would bring world peace without considering what exactly it was going to be used for!
No...it takes tents!!! Suck it up, 2-D bandits.
Lay it down
Lay it down
Lay it down
Candles in the rain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=530Hqoamf…
33
@18: Eisenhower desegregation. His Veep, not so much when it was his turn (to put it mildly). Go back far enough and the GOP was relatively decent on civil rights, for awhile and at times anyway. Relatively is a key word here....and not much in the lifetime of most people reading this.
34
The Civil Rights Act would have been signed no matter who had been president at the time, because of people in the street. People in the street is what creates action in the hallowed inner chambers of power, at the very least. So it has been with every positive social change in history.
35
@ 29.
Sure, sure. But you will have noticed—you astute so-and-so!—that the prevailing argument against raising taxes on the wealthy to at least meet the tax levels of everybody else ends in this plea: "You can't raise taxes against the wealthy because they're the captains of industry and they need that money to invest in new ventures that will create jobs for all of the peons!"
And so we vote against raising taxes (or vote for politicians who are afraid of raising taxes because they think that's not what we want), ostensibly in the people's job-creating self interest. But then profits keep going up, median income keeps going down, and unemployment sucks. So the sacrosanct private wealth, that is kept from being taxed on an argument of public good, doesn't do the public any good.
So... it's about time to seriously interrogate that argument. If people want to protect their wealth on a private, it's-mine-and-you-don't-get-to-touch-it-because-that's-immoral basis, that's great. Let's have that argument. But at the moment, the wealthy are protecting their profits on an it's-for-the-public-good-that-you-can't-tax-me basis. But that just ain't so.
I'm just asking for a little honesty—and an end to the argument that we can't tax the wealthy because doing so would hurt the rest of us. If the greedy wanna be greedy, let 'em. But let's stop pretending that a stone is a pillow.
More...
"... the wealthy are more invested in exotic trading instruments (i.e., paying people to do fancy math) than the jobs they're supposed to be creating with all that money they can't figure out how to spend but we can't tax and invest in our social structure."
Please note: Someones wealth is their private property. They can have an interest in anything they like (provided...), and aren't "supposed" to do anything with respect to creating jobs. That's their choice. You not liking it doesn't make it less of a choice.
Sure, sure. But you will have noticed—you astute so-and-so!—that the prevailing argument against raising taxes on the wealthy to at least meet the tax levels of everybody else ends in this plea: "You can't raise taxes against the wealthy because they're the captains of industry and they need that money to invest in new ventures that will create jobs for all of the peons!"
And so we vote against raising taxes (or vote for politicians who are afraid of raising taxes because they think that's not what we want), ostensibly in the people's job-creating self interest. But then profits keep going up, median income keeps going down, and unemployment sucks. So the sacrosanct private wealth, that is kept from being taxed on an argument of public good, doesn't do the public any good.
So... it's about time to seriously interrogate that argument. If people want to protect their wealth on a private, it's-mine-and-you-don't-get-to-touch-it-because-that's-immoral basis, that's great. Let's have that argument. But at the moment, the wealthy are protecting their profits on an it's-for-the-public-good-that-you-can't-tax-me basis. But that just ain't so.
I'm just asking for a little honesty—and an end to the argument that we can't tax the wealthy because doing so would hurt the rest of us. If the greedy wanna be greedy, let 'em. But let's stop pretending that a stone is a pillow.
36
What Krugman said: The goal is not about specific policies - and this is as it should be. Because none of the specific policies that would repair Occupy's many grievances have a remote snowball's chance in hell of being enacted in the current political climate. Real goal: change the political climate.
37
But there is one concrete goal of the OWS, sitting right there in its name: Occupation.
Without demands, there is no end condition for Occupation.
When you accept continuing Occupation without demands, you implicitly endorse a form of Permanent Revolution, though not quite of the old Marxist nor Trotskyite flavors.
I don't offer any opinion on whether or not that's a good thing; my interest lies less in cheering or booing than in understanding the internal organization and ideology of OWS.
Yes, yes, I know it doesn't have leaders, and the individual participants have a fabulous diversity of personal politics. OWS definitely has organizers, though, and those organizers tend to share share an interesting set of political goals and tactics.
Without demands, there is no end condition for Occupation.
When you accept continuing Occupation without demands, you implicitly endorse a form of Permanent Revolution, though not quite of the old Marxist nor Trotskyite flavors.
I don't offer any opinion on whether or not that's a good thing; my interest lies less in cheering or booing than in understanding the internal organization and ideology of OWS.
Yes, yes, I know it doesn't have leaders, and the individual participants have a fabulous diversity of personal politics. OWS definitely has organizers, though, and those organizers tend to share share an interesting set of political goals and tactics.
38
Honesty? Sorry to inconvenience you with a little honesty, but even a casual read of tax (as latest reported by federal gov't), refutes your very assertion that the rich don't already pay as much tax as the middle class or poor.
The effective tax rate of the lowest 40% of incomes is about 8%, but it is 31.2% for the very wealthy 1%.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti…
And the top quintile of incomes pays nearly 70% of ALL taxes, while the bottom 40% pay about 5%.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti…
If you want to be taken even marginally seriously as a journalist, howzabout doing something better than parroting the same crap you read on a placard. And spend a little time understanding what is ACTUALLY the tax profile of Anerica. That way you might find yourself something other than a stooge for the confiscationist movement.
Lemme go one step further and DARE you to report tax receipts the way government and economists actually use them. You'll find you're quite unwelcome by your hipster overlords for doing the job you're alleged to do, properly.
The effective tax rate of the lowest 40% of incomes is about 8%, but it is 31.2% for the very wealthy 1%.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti…
And the top quintile of incomes pays nearly 70% of ALL taxes, while the bottom 40% pay about 5%.
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collecti…
If you want to be taken even marginally seriously as a journalist, howzabout doing something better than parroting the same crap you read on a placard. And spend a little time understanding what is ACTUALLY the tax profile of Anerica. That way you might find yourself something other than a stooge for the confiscationist movement.
Lemme go one step further and DARE you to report tax receipts the way government and economists actually use them. You'll find you're quite unwelcome by your hipster overlords for doing the job you're alleged to do, properly.
39
@33: Ike was good on a number of things. @34: although I agree with your people in the streets comment, not sure the act would have been signed by anybody. Dick Daley? George Wallace? Any of the Dixiecrats? Not likely. They would have brought out more guns and dogs.
40
"the wealthy are more invested in exotic trading instruments (i.e., paying people to do fancy math) than the jobs they're supposed to be creating with all that money they can't figure out how to spend but we can't tax and invest in our social structure. "
That really does say it.
That really does say it.
41
The trolls here would like everyone to forget the entire previous decade. But let me remind them: In 2000 the US was paying off its debt, and would have been debt-free by now. Then Bush/Cheney doubled the military budget, gave tax breaks that were heavily slanted towards the wealthiest, refused to enforce federal regulations and rammed legislation that relaxed corporate & financial oversight. Result: the economy tanked.
This isn't rocket science, people. The conservatives & other idiots want to obfuscate, confuse, throwing numbers around in an attempt to forget the Bush years. Anyone with any amount of common sense, who actually remembers what happened back then knows precisely why OWS are there & what they want. Bush/Cheney ruined this country as completely as any WH administration ever could. Obama has done little or nothing to repair it, even w/ a clear majority of the people behind him. The system has failed to protect us from those who have turned our country into their private playground, the very same kind of people the colonies originally rebelled against.
This isn't rocket science, people. The conservatives & other idiots want to obfuscate, confuse, throwing numbers around in an attempt to forget the Bush years. Anyone with any amount of common sense, who actually remembers what happened back then knows precisely why OWS are there & what they want. Bush/Cheney ruined this country as completely as any WH administration ever could. Obama has done little or nothing to repair it, even w/ a clear majority of the people behind him. The system has failed to protect us from those who have turned our country into their private playground, the very same kind of people the colonies originally rebelled against.
43
ok, if the issue is that the wealthy are not paying enough taxes that can be easily remedied here in WA state. The 99% can put an initiative on the ballot calling for a progressive state income tax.
Surely it will easily pass ... right??
Or could it be that this movement is really a small minority even here in Seattle. The November rains will wash Westlake plaza clean and this will all soon be a distant memory.
Social change is not going to come from people who are incapable of much more than shouting and parrotting simplistic slogans. If that were possible all these problems would have been solved in the 1960s.
Surely it will easily pass ... right??
Or could it be that this movement is really a small minority even here in Seattle. The November rains will wash Westlake plaza clean and this will all soon be a distant memory.
Social change is not going to come from people who are incapable of much more than shouting and parrotting simplistic slogans. If that were possible all these problems would have been solved in the 1960s.
44
As an individual, Zok is an idiot. Zok has the individual liberty to be a fucking idiot. The awesome Founding Fathers said so. Individual.
It's nice that we're talking about the top quintile, most should be wondering why the top 1%, especially the top half of the 1% pay LESS in taxes. Oh, and "ALL taxes" must exclude: sales taxes, social insurance taxes, gas taxes--because those are pretty regressive.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameric…
It's nice that we're talking about the top quintile, most should be wondering why the top 1%, especially the top half of the 1% pay LESS in taxes. Oh, and "ALL taxes" must exclude: sales taxes, social insurance taxes, gas taxes--because those are pretty regressive.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameric…
45
@41 - in 2000 the US was paying off its debt, and would have been debt-free by now... provided the dot-com bubble had never collapsed. The budget surplus vanished due to the subsequent crash in revenues, before Bush-era policies started to have an impact (though boy howdy, those policies sure didn't help things, did they).
46
@44 Dirac
Yes, a few people have proportionately high concentrations of wealth. Congratulations for stating the oh-so-fucking-obvious. (Find me an developed democracy where that's not substantially the case.)
Your obsession with wealth distribution rather than tax equity belies your motives: Taking from people who work, create and achieve, to fund those that don't – as yourself.
Is your assumption that there is no economic mobility, and that the wealthiest are -- de facto -- crooks with ill-gotten gains?
Of course you are: How else are you going to justify your stealing?
Dumbfucker.
Yes, a few people have proportionately high concentrations of wealth. Congratulations for stating the oh-so-fucking-obvious. (Find me an developed democracy where that's not substantially the case.)
Your obsession with wealth distribution rather than tax equity belies your motives: Taking from people who work, create and achieve, to fund those that don't – as yourself.
Is your assumption that there is no economic mobility, and that the wealthiest are -- de facto -- crooks with ill-gotten gains?
Of course you are: How else are you going to justify your stealing?
Dumbfucker.
47
And - c'mon - citing the Sociology department of Cal-Santa Cruz as a reference source? Fuck that's funny.
At the point your support comes from soft science departments at 3rd-tier academic institutions -- punt!
And - c'mon - citing the Sociology department of Cal-Santa Cruz as a reference source? Fuck that's funny.
At the point your support comes from soft science departments at 3rd-tier academic institutions -- punt!
48
Zok, who presumes that he pays more in taxes than me, who just paid $700 to my CPA so I can pay the IRS my taxes (although I don't feel it's been "stolen").
Zok, non-confisciationist Individual believes that there is upward mobility into the 1% for him because he's good enough, he's smart enough, he's an individual. He believes that his Individualness is good enough and excellent enough to be worth "proportionately" more. [HAHA]
Zok, the Founder Myth Fellator, imagines that those big bad American Deity Dudes reach down with the invisible hand to pat him on the head when he defends Their Legacy of Perfect Liberty for Individuals Like Zok. Those same American Deity Dudes didn't think levying taxes were stealing since they gave that power to the Congress.
Zok, Individual, doesn't believe in "Stealing."
Zok, non-confisciationist Individual believes that there is upward mobility into the 1% for him because he's good enough, he's smart enough, he's an individual. He believes that his Individualness is good enough and excellent enough to be worth "proportionately" more. [HAHA]
Zok, the Founder Myth Fellator, imagines that those big bad American Deity Dudes reach down with the invisible hand to pat him on the head when he defends Their Legacy of Perfect Liberty for Individuals Like Zok. Those same American Deity Dudes didn't think levying taxes were stealing since they gave that power to the Congress.
Zok, Individual, doesn't believe in "Stealing."
49
Zok's brilliant. He has first-tier credentials because he's an Individual doin' it on his own, without society, by his big boy self.
50
'cause it's only "soft science" when the results counter prevailing buisiness goals and ends, sort of like it is only "class war" when people fight back or even speak their truth...
52
Thanks for namechecking Krugman, Barak @36. There aren't many whose observations I give more weight.
53
Yeah! And I'm upset about the weather. I think I'll occupy this bar stool and drink Martinis until it changes or I pass out. (Both will happen before the world stops being "unfair"). Grow up already.
54
I wish I could drink the Kool-Aid...that I could convince myself that ambiguity = strength (and that 2+2=5...and that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.)
I just don't see any way that anything actually happens as a result of all of this Occupying. There's no message, no plan, no constructive achievable result...no point to it, except to do it.
When I read a similar quote about how the strength of this movement is in how no one knows exactly what it stands for--I said that made no sense...and that this is the equivalent of standing in the middle of the road holding a sign that says "I'm Not Happy". There is no appropriate response to that other than "OK...and???"
I get the sense that everyone wants to be part of something meaningful and that this is as close as this generation has yet come. I get the sense that because they so desperately want this to be their life-defining experience, that as flawed or ineffective as it may be, it will be defended...because people are beginning to wrap their sense of self into it. If it doesn't matter, then possibly, they don't mater....so it HAS to matter.
It's the same logical fallacy that prevents countries from leaving countries they've been involved in military action in before achieving likely-to-have-always-been-impossible goals. "If we leave now, before we achieve what we came here to achieve, then everyone who died here doing this has died in vain...so we stay...and more die...and then we really can't leave...etc."
Give me a solution to the problems I agree with you about and I'll champion your efforts. But sleeping in tents in the park with no plan or coherent message--just a general unhappiness with the way things are and a determination to keep sleeping in tents in the park...that's not ambiguous strength on display. It's awfully close to self-indulgence.
And damn near irrelevant, except for the spectacle and the constant and unnecessary threat of escalation into violence that proves little and solves nothing.
I worry that this isn't this generation's Civil Rights Movement moment, however much everyone involved really wants it to be for them,...but that this is this generation's US Festival...and I pray it doesn't become this generation's Woodstock '99.
More...
I just don't see any way that anything actually happens as a result of all of this Occupying. There's no message, no plan, no constructive achievable result...no point to it, except to do it.
When I read a similar quote about how the strength of this movement is in how no one knows exactly what it stands for--I said that made no sense...and that this is the equivalent of standing in the middle of the road holding a sign that says "I'm Not Happy". There is no appropriate response to that other than "OK...and???"
I get the sense that everyone wants to be part of something meaningful and that this is as close as this generation has yet come. I get the sense that because they so desperately want this to be their life-defining experience, that as flawed or ineffective as it may be, it will be defended...because people are beginning to wrap their sense of self into it. If it doesn't matter, then possibly, they don't mater....so it HAS to matter.
It's the same logical fallacy that prevents countries from leaving countries they've been involved in military action in before achieving likely-to-have-always-been-impossible goals. "If we leave now, before we achieve what we came here to achieve, then everyone who died here doing this has died in vain...so we stay...and more die...and then we really can't leave...etc."
Give me a solution to the problems I agree with you about and I'll champion your efforts. But sleeping in tents in the park with no plan or coherent message--just a general unhappiness with the way things are and a determination to keep sleeping in tents in the park...that's not ambiguous strength on display. It's awfully close to self-indulgence.
And damn near irrelevant, except for the spectacle and the constant and unnecessary threat of escalation into violence that proves little and solves nothing.
I worry that this isn't this generation's Civil Rights Movement moment, however much everyone involved really wants it to be for them,...but that this is this generation's US Festival...and I pray it doesn't become this generation's Woodstock '99.
55
Dear Everyone:
Keep your eyes on the prize. We CAN succeed where other movements have failed.
"DELAY IS PREFERABLE TO ERROR." -Thomas Jefferson
Solidarity from Florida.
Keep your eyes on the prize. We CAN succeed where other movements have failed.
"DELAY IS PREFERABLE TO ERROR." -Thomas Jefferson
Solidarity from Florida.
57
Zok,
You make perfectly acceptable arguments and I only ask that in our nations political debate the politicians could be as honest as you are about the real reasons for their policy.
You're saying that we shouldn't tax the wealthy just to hand that money over to the poor and that's a valid opinion. Democrats are not proposing taking from the rich to give to the poor. Obama's jobs bill proposes taking from the rich to fix America's crumbling infrastructure. To do that we will be hiring Americans to do that work. Hiring people to build a bridge is not a government handout. It's government doing it's job and at the same time improving the economy by hiring people.
You say that the wealthy have earned their money and can spend or invest it in any way they like. That is correct but Republican politicians and Tea Party activists are saying we can't tax the wealthy because they need their money to create jobs. I only ask that politicians be honest in their positions. I want to hear John Boehner say "we can't tax the wealthy because the wealthy should be allowed to spend all of their money on whatever they like". Then people could decide whether we should keep taxes on the wealthy at their current rate which is very near the lowest it has ever been or if we should raise taxes. But people should be able to make that decision based on the facts rather than this "they need that money to create jobs" BS.
You're also saying that the wealthy are paying plenty of taxes and that is also a valid opinion. With some exceptions the wealthy do pay more than the poor, both as a percentage of income and as a total. Most people agree with a progressive tax that increases rates on higher earners because higher earners can afford more and they benefit more from keeping our system running smoothly. If a bridge needs to be shut down because it's in disrepair (this is happening all over the country due to budget cuts) the poor will be inconvenienced but they'll take a different route to work. Business owners on the other hand stand to lose a lot of money with delays in deliveries.
Also, increasing taxes on the poor doesn't help for 2 reasons. The first is the simple fact that they don't have much money to tax so you can't get much out of them. The second is that when you raise taxes on the poor you're taking away the money they need to feed their family. When you raise taxes on the wealthy maybe they can't buy that second Porsche.
Right now the highest tax bracket is paying a lower percent in taxes than at any time since the 1920's. The most aggressive proposal from Democrats wouldn't even bring the tax rates back up to where they were under Reagan.
Raising taxes on the wealthy (who can afford it and who are not using that money to create jobs) in order to fix our crumbling infrastructure (since the wealthy have the most to lose as it crumbles) will create jobs (which helps the economy) is absolutely necessary to improve the economy.
More...
You make perfectly acceptable arguments and I only ask that in our nations political debate the politicians could be as honest as you are about the real reasons for their policy.
You're saying that we shouldn't tax the wealthy just to hand that money over to the poor and that's a valid opinion. Democrats are not proposing taking from the rich to give to the poor. Obama's jobs bill proposes taking from the rich to fix America's crumbling infrastructure. To do that we will be hiring Americans to do that work. Hiring people to build a bridge is not a government handout. It's government doing it's job and at the same time improving the economy by hiring people.
You say that the wealthy have earned their money and can spend or invest it in any way they like. That is correct but Republican politicians and Tea Party activists are saying we can't tax the wealthy because they need their money to create jobs. I only ask that politicians be honest in their positions. I want to hear John Boehner say "we can't tax the wealthy because the wealthy should be allowed to spend all of their money on whatever they like". Then people could decide whether we should keep taxes on the wealthy at their current rate which is very near the lowest it has ever been or if we should raise taxes. But people should be able to make that decision based on the facts rather than this "they need that money to create jobs" BS.
You're also saying that the wealthy are paying plenty of taxes and that is also a valid opinion. With some exceptions the wealthy do pay more than the poor, both as a percentage of income and as a total. Most people agree with a progressive tax that increases rates on higher earners because higher earners can afford more and they benefit more from keeping our system running smoothly. If a bridge needs to be shut down because it's in disrepair (this is happening all over the country due to budget cuts) the poor will be inconvenienced but they'll take a different route to work. Business owners on the other hand stand to lose a lot of money with delays in deliveries.
Also, increasing taxes on the poor doesn't help for 2 reasons. The first is the simple fact that they don't have much money to tax so you can't get much out of them. The second is that when you raise taxes on the poor you're taking away the money they need to feed their family. When you raise taxes on the wealthy maybe they can't buy that second Porsche.
Right now the highest tax bracket is paying a lower percent in taxes than at any time since the 1920's. The most aggressive proposal from Democrats wouldn't even bring the tax rates back up to where they were under Reagan.
Raising taxes on the wealthy (who can afford it and who are not using that money to create jobs) in order to fix our crumbling infrastructure (since the wealthy have the most to lose as it crumbles) will create jobs (which helps the economy) is absolutely necessary to improve the economy.
58
Yes, I would be a big fan of politicians being transparent in their dealings:
"My jobs bill is substantially an effort to reward unions who have given generously to the campaigns of my party, and to create long-term dependent funding relationships that further federalize local responsibilities like public safety and schools. Much of the money being spent is fluffy, but appealing to my base, and not intended to create any lasting economic competitiveness. Of the $447 billion, only $50 billion is for road/bridge infrastructure. But I will keep using bridges and roads as backdrops and buzzwords.
This Blue State Bailout plan is disproportionately targeted to states whose electoral votes are important to me. This timing and handling of this grab-bag of cuts, taxes and regulations is a cynical attempt to align my opposition with millionaires, a transparently political opportunistic move, as it hadn't occurred to me to present a comprehensive economic plan in the first 1,000 days in office."
Yes, some honesty would be a treat.
Yes, I would be a big fan of politicians being transparent in their dealings:
"My jobs bill is substantially an effort to reward unions who have given generously to the campaigns of my party, and to create long-term dependent funding relationships that further federalize local responsibilities like public safety and schools. Much of the money being spent is fluffy, but appealing to my base, and not intended to create any lasting economic competitiveness. Of the $447 billion, only $50 billion is for road/bridge infrastructure. But I will keep using bridges and roads as backdrops and buzzwords.
This Blue State Bailout plan is disproportionately targeted to states whose electoral votes are important to me. This timing and handling of this grab-bag of cuts, taxes and regulations is a cynical attempt to align my opposition with millionaires, a transparently political opportunistic move, as it hadn't occurred to me to present a comprehensive economic plan in the first 1,000 days in office."
Yes, some honesty would be a treat.
59
@50 I think anybody that calls something a "soft scientist" as some sort of disparagement has proven they don't know the first thing about science, especially with innovations in research methods and "big data."
It's the kind of conceptual dualism you abandon when you get your driver's license.
It's the kind of conceptual dualism you abandon when you get your driver's license.
60
Saying that simple use of the word soft science "proves" anything is quite a rich use of irony, given that you're such an astute student of science.
Dirac, your central argument has been shredded, so of course you resort to silly name-calling and labeling.
Keep drumming your drum, while the productive world passes you by.
Saying that simple use of the word soft science "proves" anything is quite a rich use of irony, given that you're such an astute student of science.
Dirac, your central argument has been shredded, so of course you resort to silly name-calling and labeling.
Keep drumming your drum, while the productive world passes you by.
61
Great post, Mr. Kiley, you are beginning to do what was once referred to as real reportage --- it's been missing for quite a few decades, sir.
And to add my humble comments to the mix:
We continuously hear the propaganda meme that people are afraid to borrow from the banks --- but the truth is that banks have been refusing to loan at record numbers.
The bankers want to spend all their free government money in speculation across the markets and foreign investment.
Therefore, in a period of record low interest rates, when housing prices have fallen considerably, few can buy at this time.
A recent United Nations economic report on food prices explained that investment in commodity speculation (speculation on foodstuffs, etc.) has increased from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion by 2008, a 2,000 percent increase.
Now that may appear to be a large increase, but it dramatically under reports the increase when one understands that the amount has been leveraged to a great extent; a conservative estimate would be from 10,000% to 50,000% leveraging on that $260 billion in commodities speculation --- thanks to securitized financial instruments, credit derivatives, and further manipulated with the use of credit default swaps (CDS), another category of credit derivatives. (CDSes are often referred to as “unregulated insurance” -- if they were regulated, they’d be outlawed! This is what they mean by “shadow banking.”)
Another recent report, this time by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (USA) explained that 95% of commodity futures trades was pure speculation, not for purposes of hedging, or spreading risk, as the Wall Street bankers are forever claiming.
So we can extrapolate that massive and unwarranted speculation in food pricing (commodity futures) is a formidable cost driver – resulting in much human turmoil and tragedy while accomplishing nothing of value – except increasing the wealth of the speculators.
Of course, the same situation has been concurrently taking place in oil and energy markets, precious metals markets (gold, silver, etc.) and the healthcare sector, all affecting prices.
So to understand the massive roiling of international and national markets, using phantom money and funds, is to understand the enormous detrimental and destructive forces on people’s lives which is decidedly anti-progress in human affairs.
Understanding the connections and linkages allows one to better grasp seemingly unrelated world events: the cornering of the chocolate market awhile back, then a few months later serious political troubles erupt in the major chocolate-producing country, Ivory Coast (Africa), thus causing upheavals in chocolate (futures trading) market prices.
Behind the scenes one sees money flows between certain financial groups to certain countries’ rulers (the Ivory Coast, in this case) – and a few people are enriched, while many die and many other innocent lives are destroyed in the process.
Now we have been told another propaganda meme – that this global economic meltdown resulted from a slight mortgage default rate a few years back – a preposterous notion, given that had there been zero defaults the same meltdown would have occurred – it is unsustainable for the banksters to continue selling $100 to $1,000 worth of debt for every $1 of debt on hand – a relatively recent occurrence, all made possible by relatively recent changes in laws, regulations and legislation --- in other words, absolute corruption.
This is exactly how Wall Streeters made their billions – selling endless debt which they now tell us is our fault and our problem!
When Warren Buffett publicly denounces credit derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction” – then later spreads his money among congress to ensure these weapons continue to exist and proliferate – he is playing the American public in the same manner as the Robber Barons once did.
When Warren Buffett publicly proclaims that the super-rich should pay taxes also, while his company is in arrears for billions of unpaid taxes, he is playing the American public in the same manner as the Robber Barons once did.
Perhaps the time has finally arrived that the people are tired of being played for fools?
(And for even more intelligent comments on the matter, please see Chris Hedges' remarks below.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
More...
And to add my humble comments to the mix:
We continuously hear the propaganda meme that people are afraid to borrow from the banks --- but the truth is that banks have been refusing to loan at record numbers.
The bankers want to spend all their free government money in speculation across the markets and foreign investment.
Therefore, in a period of record low interest rates, when housing prices have fallen considerably, few can buy at this time.
A recent United Nations economic report on food prices explained that investment in commodity speculation (speculation on foodstuffs, etc.) has increased from $13 billion in 2003 to $260 billion by 2008, a 2,000 percent increase.
Now that may appear to be a large increase, but it dramatically under reports the increase when one understands that the amount has been leveraged to a great extent; a conservative estimate would be from 10,000% to 50,000% leveraging on that $260 billion in commodities speculation --- thanks to securitized financial instruments, credit derivatives, and further manipulated with the use of credit default swaps (CDS), another category of credit derivatives. (CDSes are often referred to as “unregulated insurance” -- if they were regulated, they’d be outlawed! This is what they mean by “shadow banking.”)
Another recent report, this time by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (USA) explained that 95% of commodity futures trades was pure speculation, not for purposes of hedging, or spreading risk, as the Wall Street bankers are forever claiming.
So we can extrapolate that massive and unwarranted speculation in food pricing (commodity futures) is a formidable cost driver – resulting in much human turmoil and tragedy while accomplishing nothing of value – except increasing the wealth of the speculators.
Of course, the same situation has been concurrently taking place in oil and energy markets, precious metals markets (gold, silver, etc.) and the healthcare sector, all affecting prices.
So to understand the massive roiling of international and national markets, using phantom money and funds, is to understand the enormous detrimental and destructive forces on people’s lives which is decidedly anti-progress in human affairs.
Understanding the connections and linkages allows one to better grasp seemingly unrelated world events: the cornering of the chocolate market awhile back, then a few months later serious political troubles erupt in the major chocolate-producing country, Ivory Coast (Africa), thus causing upheavals in chocolate (futures trading) market prices.
Behind the scenes one sees money flows between certain financial groups to certain countries’ rulers (the Ivory Coast, in this case) – and a few people are enriched, while many die and many other innocent lives are destroyed in the process.
Now we have been told another propaganda meme – that this global economic meltdown resulted from a slight mortgage default rate a few years back – a preposterous notion, given that had there been zero defaults the same meltdown would have occurred – it is unsustainable for the banksters to continue selling $100 to $1,000 worth of debt for every $1 of debt on hand – a relatively recent occurrence, all made possible by relatively recent changes in laws, regulations and legislation --- in other words, absolute corruption.
This is exactly how Wall Streeters made their billions – selling endless debt which they now tell us is our fault and our problem!
When Warren Buffett publicly denounces credit derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destruction” – then later spreads his money among congress to ensure these weapons continue to exist and proliferate – he is playing the American public in the same manner as the Robber Barons once did.
When Warren Buffett publicly proclaims that the super-rich should pay taxes also, while his company is in arrears for billions of unpaid taxes, he is playing the American public in the same manner as the Robber Barons once did.
Perhaps the time has finally arrived that the people are tired of being played for fools?
(And for even more intelligent comments on the matter, please see Chris Hedges' remarks below.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
62
@60 Oh, boy, the Myth of the Productive Achievers. Yay. Say, what's you favorite? The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? Haha, why do you keep responding then? Why do you care about freeloaders in Westlake too? That's not a very productive use of your psychic energy.
Actually, my only political demand is...for people to understand real irony. Oh, and "soft science"--two words!
"astute student of science" Oh, but I am, you presumptuous troll. I'm even a "hard" scientist; not brilliant or anything but I sure can see bullshit when I see it.
I merely stopped arguing because you don't get it. It's also funny that you say I'm resorting to name calling after you posted some rightwing rewrite of Obama's jobs speech. You'll deny there's massive income inequality and argue for "tax equity." Throw in some hateful screed about stealing and how I'm not a productive member of society. It'll go on forever.
Actually, my only political demand is...for people to understand real irony. Oh, and "soft science"--two words!
"astute student of science" Oh, but I am, you presumptuous troll. I'm even a "hard" scientist; not brilliant or anything but I sure can see bullshit when I see it.
I merely stopped arguing because you don't get it. It's also funny that you say I'm resorting to name calling after you posted some rightwing rewrite of Obama's jobs speech. You'll deny there's massive income inequality and argue for "tax equity." Throw in some hateful screed about stealing and how I'm not a productive member of society. It'll go on forever.
63
Nuance and understanding and basic human dignity are an anathema for those that argue so full of sound and fury in the name of "private property" over all;
they are locked into a broken antiquated mode of thought and predictably lash out as a reaction when their morally untenable position is exposed.
they are locked into a broken antiquated mode of thought and predictably lash out as a reaction when their morally untenable position is exposed.
64
@62, he doesn't seem to be arguing that there isn't income inequality. He's just saying that he doesn't give a shit if there's income inequality because poor people are poor because they're lazy worthless sacks of shit. You see, if there are any people at all that have gone from being poor to being wealthy at any time in the last 100 years or so then anyone who hasn't become rich is just worthless.
65
Let's all dis Occupy because they can't magically fix everything! Let's make doing absolutely nothing or actively being counter-productive seem morally superior to actually doing something! Let's be the assholes who deserve the government we've got!
66
Not quite Root: I'm recognizing that income inequality and social inequity aren't surrogates. Yes, some people make lots of money. But let's not assume that because someone has more money that, necessarily, that represents an injustice to others. It's not that I don't care about the plight of anyone else. It's that I object to the proposed solution.
To suggest that unless you agree with the Occupiers demands for wealth redistribution through government, that you're an agent of the aristocracy -- is the same kind of absolutism that get George Bush rightfully made fun of.
What I'm sure fries Dirac the most is that, in the teeth of this economic wobble, the massive populist movement only cobbled-together 70,000 participants, nationwide, (according to Slog). And this was supposed to be The Big Fucking Weekend.
And so in the absence of evident public support from the 99%, he has to lash-out... like a...
Waaaaaaaaahh....
To suggest that unless you agree with the Occupiers demands for wealth redistribution through government, that you're an agent of the aristocracy -- is the same kind of absolutism that get George Bush rightfully made fun of.
What I'm sure fries Dirac the most is that, in the teeth of this economic wobble, the massive populist movement only cobbled-together 70,000 participants, nationwide, (according to Slog). And this was supposed to be The Big Fucking Weekend.
And so in the absence of evident public support from the 99%, he has to lash-out... like a...
Waaaaaaaaahh....
67
So, how is it fair that a group of people that control 90% of the wealth only pay 40% of the taxes?
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
GOP Congressman: We Have to Ban Abortion Because Fetuses Are Masturbating In There by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
The Wednesday Morning News by Goldy
-
Less Than a Quarter of Americans Have Confidence in Newspapers by Eli Sanders
-
Jobs-Killing Socialism Drives Seattle's Unemployment Rate Down to 4.7 Percent by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (68) RSS